All Christians, as well as most "non-believers" would agree that Jesus was a teacher. Disagreement among Christians often comes on whether the focus should be on Jesus’ teaching role or his role as the "Son of God"and the "only way of salvation". Skeptics or non-believers in Jesus’ latter role, often affirm that the real importance of Jesus lies in his moral teaching.
These two ways of seeing Jesus led to two paradigms. These two paradigms have led to a broad division among American Christians today. There is a sharp conflict between the supporters of each paradigm, producing very different understandings of Jesus.
The first paradigm is an earlier one, the second is an emerging paradigm today.
The first paradigm is belief-centered; it emphasizes the importance of holding certain Christian beliefs about Jesus, God, and the Bible. The second paradigm is way-centered ; it emphasizes that Christianity is about following Jesus on a path, a path of transformation. The first emphasizes the literal meaning of Christian language, including the Bible; the second emphasizes the more-than-literal meaning of Christian language, the metaphorical meaning of Christian language.
The earlier paradigm sees Jesus through a Christian doctrinal lens. Jesus and his teachings are shaped by later Christian doctrine, especially the creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries; ie, "God’s only son, our Lord, the very God of God, one substance with God, etc; These ideas have become the regular "hearing" and "reading" of the gospels. Examples of the doctrinal understanding are: He’s God’s only son, both human and divine, died for the sins of the world, now one with God (coequal with God).
The earlier paradigm sees the gospels and Jesus within the framework of Biblical literalism (a concept that is only 200-300 hundred years old). Emphasizes: the Bible is a divine product that is to be taken (in most cases) literally. Included in this is inerrancy, both hard & soft. "soft" would limit the inerrancy to the "original autographs".
The earlier paradigm sees Jesus intrinsically linked to an afterlife (the promise of heaven and threat of hell).That is what Christianity is all about. It links Jesus’ teachings to "being saved" or "salvation". Jesus’ primary message is about heaven and how to get there. It concentrates on heaven and often does not fully recognize the importance of the "here & now". Often, in this paradigm, we hear about the kingdom of heaven (God) which is understood to be a part of "eternal" life. Eternal is a Greek term often mistranslated. Eternal is often equated with an afterlife. It generally is referring to: of the ages; into the ages. It doesn’t really appear to be referring to an afterlife, only a long time.
The earlier paradigm emphasizes believing. In one sense, there is nothing new about this. In early Christianity, believing in Jesus was affirmed. However, over the last 400 years, the word believe has undergone a radical change of meaning. The earlier meaning was literally a belief IN Jesus. Whereas the later definition involved belief THAT a series of statements are true that involve Jesus. Believing in involved a relationship of trust, loyalty, and love. The other, believing that a series of statements are true about Jesus (and God). Big difference!! This change of meaning came about because of the collision between Chritianity and the Enlightenment; the earth-centered universe theory in particular. Few Christians today would argue against this fact, but other scientific theories and facts that are well established from the time of the Enlightenment, are still rejected by many Christians. The Enlightenment worldview collided with the Christian worldview of what is possible and what is impossible. So the meaning of believing changed from trust and loyalty to believing that a set of statements about God, Jesus, and the Bible are true. The earlier paradigm’s understanding of believing as affirming Christian teachings to be true in spite of reasons for skepticism indicates that it is not ancient, but a product of the collision with the Enlightenment.
* Part 2 will discuss Jesus within an emerging Christian paradigm, a way-centered paradigm.
Dr. Richard Beck, at Experimental Theology, has been blogging about The Psychology of Christianity , which is a chapter from an upcoming handbook for the APA on Psychology & Spirituality. Part 8 is a fascinating look into horizontal (God) and vertical (our fellow humans) obligations of the Christian. It also gives a reference to the thoughts of Walter Brueggeman, the Old Testament scholar, on how Christians approach the question of homosexuality in connection with those horizontal and vertical obligations . Good Stuff! Here’s the link to his 7/22 post.
*This is a re-post from 2007 which is even truer today.
There are two possible sources of error stemming from traditional "true" religions. The first is simply misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the specific teachings of the original great teacher. Because the original listeners, or followers , were not themselves enlightened, the original teachings could have been contaminated by their egos. This then became magnified by subsequent translators and scribes down through the generations. The error often is due to the fact that the ego has a tendency to be literal in its hearing of the word rather than the spirit or essence of a teaching. Any translation that teaches anything other than peace or love just may be in error.
The second and more prevalent gross distortions are spiritual teachings which arise from what is usually referred to as "church doctrine". These regulations, often in the form of guilt-provoking prohibitions, were actually made up by church officials and supposed authorities who, in reality, had little or no claim to authority at all but instead had acquired political power in the structure of the institutions at the time.
There is no authentic or plausible reason to modify the precise teaching of an original great teacher for some ostensible gain. As obvious as it may seem, it has not been clear through the centuries that to be a Christian, for example, means simply to follow Christ’s teachings.
All the great teachers, Christ included of course, teach nonviolence, noncondemnation, and unconditional love. It is hard to see how alleged ecclesiastic authority could violate these basic truisms supposedly for "the good of the faith", or "the good of the church", or the "elimination of infidelities", or just wars.
There are many subjects not addressed in original spiritual teachings, thus creating the opportunity for fallacious religious elaborations. All kinds of ’sins’ have been invented over the centuries , with elaborate explanations and rationalizations which can only be described as sick manipulations of natural human affairs. Of course, if you believe in the "fall of man", that becomes a further justification for those ’sin’ creations. The harm that resulted was not only spiritual error but also psychological cruelty and the ’blanket’ guilt of humanity. This focus on guilt and sin further condemns human consciousness by reinforcing the dilemma of the opposites and the duality of perception. This latter destructive effect on human consciousness takes man farther away from God and creates a barrier that is transcended only by the very few who have to be almost spiritual geniuses in order to succeed in escaping the coercive trap of elaborate fallacies.
A further destructive effect of the pushing of some religious doctrines on the faithful is that it creates the very basis for terrible wars and persecutions. These are always based on religious differences which are exaggerated in importance in order to justify religiously sanctioned mayhem. These misinterpretations and deviations are especially noticable in the murky religious meddlings with sexuality, procreation, child-rearing, diet, details of daily living, customs, dress, and political power.
Wearing different kinds of clothing, hats, or facial hair is enough to fuel religious persecution or war. Circumcision, not eating meat on Fridays, saying grace before meals, and dates and details of religious holidays all become ammunition. Whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday becomes more important than the truth. whether wearing a hat or no hat shows respect for God becomes the issue. By exploiting trivialities at the cost of ignoring the main thrust of spiritual truth, religions contribute to their own downfall and that of all humanity. Much that is revered as church doctrine is really the product of the ego. Those who see sin and evil everywhere are themselves the problem.
Much of what has traditionally been described as sin is really the guilt-ridden exaggerations held in the mind of some "emotionally disturbed" church authority. Adherence to the admonition, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," would silence all the misappropriations of spiritual truth.
Collectively, these distortions of spiritual truth have paradoxically condemned both God and human nature in the name of "divinity". To usurp that authority and make pronouncements in the name of God seems rather delusional. No one who ever experienced the absolute reality of the presence of God could ever make such distorted statements.
* some ideas and concepts adapted from: "The Eye of the I", Dr. David Hawkins
*I found this "Letter to the Editor" in my local newspaper…..
Wrong Examples
In Sunday’s paper, three Christian retail stores placed a full-page ad featuring a Founding Fathers Foursome: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.
None of these men were believing Christians. Washington only kept a membership in the Anglican Church because if he did not he would not be eligible to vote or to hold public office in the colony, and later the state, of Virginia. John Adams was a Unitarian who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth or the physical resurrection. Jefferson, also a fierce Unitarian, went so far as to write his own version of the New Testament removing all of what he considered to be the "mythology" about the Jewish teacher named Jesus. As for Franklin, he was at best an agnostic who, at times, seems to have been a very convinced and convincing advocate of the atheist viewpoint.
This is not to say there were not Founding Fathers who were convinced Christians. Many were. Just not the four men cited in the ad. When did we stop teaching history in this country?
*It doesn’t really matter how totally accurate the information is. The point is that these men are taken by the religious right as prime examples of what it means to have Christian Founding Fathers…. These men simply were not what the religious right said they were.
Through the passage of time, no piece of literature retains the complete, first-hand meaning or intention of the original author. This includes, and is especially true of religious literature because of its very nature. Although the work may create the impression that it contains unchangable truth or universal meaning, successive generations of readers will most likely glean from it a meaning somewhat different from that of the original. With each successive generation, the original intent of the author can change again and again. What does this say to us? I believe that we must approach any work of literature with an open mind. We must do our best, without any preconceived notions about the author’s purpose or meaning, to interpret the work on its on merit. This is not an easy thing to do. But, it is essential that we approach every work of literature that we choose to study in this way. The more we are able to distance ourselves from the conventionally accepted understanding, the more we will be able to see a fresh perspective that will perhaps lead to new interpretations. This approach may be in opposition to what many academics would say is the best course of action to follow when studying a piece of literature.
*This from the "World Atheist Conference: God & Politics" in Copenhagen:
We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:
We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.
Before the religious conversion of Saul/Paul, the only Christian group seems to have been the Jewish Christians in Palestine. It was formed by the followers of Jesus and was led by James, who was referred to as the brother of Jesus. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves as a Jewish reform group. They attended and supplied animal sacrifices at the Temple, celebrated the Jewish seasonal festivals, practiced circumcision of their male children, and followed the strict dietary and behavioral laws in the Hebrew Scriptures. They regarded Jesus as a prophet anointed by God, and not in any way divine. Beliefs such as the virgin birth and Trinity, were unknown to them. Church organizations, including priests, bishops, formal creeds, etc were not part of their practice; these developments only appeared in Christianity decades or centuries in their future.
Later in the 4th decade of the first century CE, when Paul returned from his three year hiatus, probably in Syria, he introduced his belief system — Pauline Christianity — in competition to Jewish Christianity. In 70 CE, the Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem and killed most of the Jewish Christians. The survivors scattered. This left Pauline Christianity largely free to evolve into the Catholic Church.
The earliest creed of the later Pauline Christian movement appears to have been: "Jesus is Lord." The expression is found throughout the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) and on the walls of ancient buildings "Anyone who made this declaration at their baptism was regarded as a Christian." That was a very inclusive definition of "Christian" then, and remains so today, because of the wide range of meanings given to "Lord." It could mean God; it could mean spiritual leader.
Stumble it!
